Can Insurance companies really deny claims? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 11:17 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jhill32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Shakopee, MN, USA
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This topic has popped-up in various Threads and unfortunately, often takes away from the "real" intent of the Thread (I too, am guilty of this). I'd like to move all the "legal" discussions to this thread so as not to dilute the others.

The general assumption seems to be that if you do NOT get a permit, do NOT follow code, or even alter a device to the point where it is no longer within code, that the Insurance can an (presumably) will use that as a reason to deny your claim for a loss, regardless of whether the item in question actually caused the loss. As the homeowner, it will be up to you to prove otherwise. The converse, is that if you DO get a permit, and DO get everything inspected, that the Insurance company cannot deny your claim.

I find it hard to believe that an insurance company can actually deny a claim simply by finding 1 incidence of a code infraction. That seems way too simplistic. I mean, I've seen people who've burned down their house by storing a propane tank in their garage. As far as I know, the Insurance company paid. I can, however, see an Insurance company (after paying for a loss) going back to a company, a contractor, or an inspector, in an attempt to recover partial damages through subrogation.

I am NOT a legal expert, in any way. And I am NOT trying to attack anyone's comments or opinions. I have never even had the misfortune to make a claim against my homeowners insurance, so I speak completely from the hip. I'd be interested to hear any evidence for or against the various claims. And please, let's try to keep the "urban legends" out of it.

jhill32 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 12:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Patrick C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am not an insurance expert, but I am an attorney. The answer to your question, is that an insurance company cannot deny your claim simply because you failed to obtain an inspection and get a permit.

They must show that your failure to follow codes caused the damage. As a practical matter, however, they will always find creative ways to latch on to your failure to get a permit. This is a classic tactic of making you look bad as a defense.

At a minimum they can attribute a portion of the loss to your failure to follow codes - e.g. a kitchen fire would not have spread as rapidly if the theater had the appropriate <blank>.

Hope this helps.

On a related note, anyone had a UPS claim? I've had 2 in 3 years, both for electronics, and their immediate reaction in each is to deny the claim for poor packaging. After talking to a couple other people, I've heard identical experiences. My problems are:

1. There is no way to re-create how I packed the object (either the material has been pulled out, the box ripped, or the packing thrown away by the recepient before UPS inspects it).

2. When you ship a package by phone, online, or at UPS, they sell you the insurance, but do not offer any of the terms. The website doesn't even have a click-through to the terms of the insurance on the pickup request.

3. Even when you do dig through the website to the shipping guidlines, they are presented as "good ideas" and "tips" not rigid guidelines.

Frustrating!
Patrick C is offline  
post #3 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
robertmee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I lifted the following quote from a newsgroup posting:

"Most insurance policies provide exclusions for when you've done something illegal. In many areas, doing electrical work without a permit or getting inspected is illegal. In Canada, in theory, you can even go to jail for
violating the electrical code."

Sounds like a round about way to deny coverage.

Bottom line, the insurance companies are out to make money, and if they can reasonably find an excuse to deny you coverage, they'll likely pursue it. For me, the $40 permit was worth the extra piece of mind.
robertmee is offline  
post #4 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wayne A. Pflughaupt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Katy, TX USA
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
On a related note, anyone had a UPS claim? I've had 2 in 3 years, both for electronics, and their immediate reaction in each is to deny the claim for poor packaging. After talking to a couple other people, I've heard identical experiences.
I had the proprietor of a storefront mailbox establishment tell me a few years ago that UPS’ standards for “properly packed†is a minimum of 4†inside between the item to the box, the space tightly filled with packing material. I’m sure UPS likes this because packing as such virtually and physically guarantees no claims. Not to mention higher shipping charges due to the larger package. Of course, this would preclude “send it in the original factory box;†none of them meet the 4†standard.

As far as “proving it,†I’m sure photo documentation of the item and packing process would suffice.

Bottom line, I would never expect to get an insurance claim from UPS short of an actual lost or stolen package. So I pack mine as if I expect it to be run over by bulldozers.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt
Wayne A. Pflughaupt is offline  
post #5 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 01:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
cgblack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Vacaville, CA, USA
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just wanted to post a few links concerning this topic:

========================================
CONSEQUENCES OF WORKING WITHOUT A REQUIRED PERMIT:

...
4. If you have an insurance claim related to any work done without permits, your carrier may not pay the claim. They often check with building departments for permits and the required inspections.

http://www.mountolivetownship.com/building.html

I have found numerous similar wordings from various city hall web sites.
========================================

Here is an interesting (but not entirely revelant) court case where a building permit DEFINITELY saved their a$$!

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/nc-s.../may1794/banks

========================================
From Standard Insurance's "How to file a Claim" page:

FILING FIRE CLAIMS

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

For building Loss
...
4. Certified copy of the building permit
...

http://www.standardinsurancecom.com/claims.html

I have also found other instances of the above at other insurance company web sites.
========================================


If you have a code infraction that is not related to the claim, then the insurance company is not likely to use it against you. However, if you build your entire HT without a permit (including wiring), and a fire starts in there for any reason, you are going to face extreme difficulties.

Graeme Black
My HT construction page
Nothing can be made idiot-proof, because idiots are far too clever ...
cgblack is offline  
post #6 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 04:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deane Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Omaha, NE USA
Posts: 1,177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
On a related note, anyone had a UPS claim?
I think UPS has been eaten alive with claims in recent years, most of it due to their own rough handling of shipments.

Ironically, the one time I did ship something that was indeed improperly packed, it got damaged and they paid the claim promptly. Go figure.

Our local UPS facility will no longer accept sealed packages. They want to see the packing, then they seal it. I should think that would backfire on them, because I should think they would have no recourse except to pay if they've pre-inspected and approved the packaging.

Deane
Deane Johnson is online now  
post #7 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 04:30 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jhill32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Shakopee, MN, USA
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Good links cgblack!

There is no doubt in my mind that a permit and inspection record will definitely help if there ever is a question.

In states where homeowners are required to have all work performed by licensed contractors, I can that ANY unlicensed work could be considered illegal, although it still seems like they would have to "prove" that it was the illegal work that caused the loss.

But I wonder what would happen if it WAS inspected, and there was still a failure in one of the "inspected areas". I know my city (sorry, no links, just words from the building inspector) that the city cannot be held liable for a failed system even if they DID inspect it. In either case, I may have caused the failure because of shoddy work. It just doesn't seem like an argument that can hold up.

It would be interesting to hear a case study of someone who has actually had a claim denied based on these grounds. What provoked the Insurance company to investigate? What was the appeal process?

jhill32 is offline  
post #8 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 04:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 24,021
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Liked: 166
They make their money by paying out as little as possible. It's that simple.

If you even have to ask, you are better off getting the permit. What a long and expensive headache it would be if something bad happened which may or not have been your fault and they decide to limit reimbursment or not reimburse at all.

If the damage was significant enough, it could be a financial life changer if you are deemed inelidgeable for coverage.

Remember, an ounce of prevention..............

Jeff

Jeff

My Home Theater of the Month- Le Petit Trianon

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #9 of 27 Old 06-10-2002, 06:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Swampfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally posted by thebland
They make their money by paying out as little as possible. It's that simple.

Actually, they make money by spreading risk, and must strike a a balance of being credible and avoiding fraudulent claims. If your toaster causes a fire in your kitchen, they will not deny your fire loss because you have a home theater. They will pay for damage to any equipment you have to policy limits, as well as any damage to policy limits. They will likely investigate as far as to exclude arson, assess monetary damages, and make you submit receipts for things that seem out of line with statistical data. (for example "$8,000 seems excessive for a pair of speakers since the national average is under $500, do you have a receipt?")
On the other hand, if faulty wiring in your jury rigged home theater causes a fire, and the fire department isolates the cause to uninspected, out of code, shoddy workmanship, you have a problem.
Swampfox is offline  
post #10 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 04:11 AM
jkv
Advanced Member
 
jkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Duluth, GA. US
Posts: 649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What about the case where you did all the work yourself (to code) but do not have a permit nor had the work inspected? It really isn't that hard to run a new circuit from the box to a room. Most (all?) of this is really common sense.

I did all of my own wiring (new circuits) and I have never had a problem; it has been wired to code. I guess if you stay up all night worrying about it it is better to either get someone to do it or have it inspected.

Riverside Cinemas
jkv is offline  
post #11 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 04:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 24,021
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Liked: 166
I think it only matters if (in the unlikely event) a fire is determined to have started from there, the house burns down, and the fire dept determines it came from your non-permited basement. Then, you might be in trouble.

JEff

My Home Theater of the Month- Le Petit Trianon

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #12 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 05:54 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jhill32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Shakopee, MN, USA
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Swampfox


...They will pay for damage to any equipment you have to policy limits, as well as any damage to policy limits. They will likely investigate as far as to exclude arson, assess monetary damages, and make you submit receipts for things that seem out of line with statistical data. (for example "$8,000 seems excessive for a pair of speakers since the national average is under $500, do you have a receipt?")...
Once my basement and Theatre were finished, I went an talked to my Insurance Agent (State Farm) and had both the basic square footage added, as well as declaring the Theatre as a "special purpose" room. This was to register the fact that the cost to reconstruct this room would be much more than the standard charge per sq. foot.

Although they insisted there would not be a problem replacing the equipment, I listed my projector and the electronics as addendums on the policy. State Farm considers the Theatre equipment as part of the house "contents", not the dwelling. In the case of a complete loss, the "contents" of the house is limited to 50% of the cost of the dwelling.

In the end, they tell you what your $$ coverage is for dwelling and contents. If you feel that these numbers are too small, they will gladly charge you a larger premium for a larger $$ coverage.

jhill32 is offline  
post #13 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 06:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
bwolff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would have to say that most of the work that seems to be done by members of this forum would be considered over kill by most standards. The term GROSS NEGLIGENCE I believe would be how the insurance company would describe using 18-gauge zip cord to run an outlet. The reason that some chose not to pull a permit isn’t to do shoddy work. Fire marshals can see the size wire used, the breakers used, ect, ect. As far as fire spreading in a theater. Where’s the air going to come from? Most are so damn tight that the fire would snuff itself if it did start in there. I am going to climb on a soapbox her for just a second. I do feel that a hard-wired smoke detector in the theater are a MUST just so that you know if a fire is in the house. Most of the theaters are so sound proof that with a movie playing you wouldn’t know till it was to late and most only have one way in and out. That would be catastrophic. Ok I am climbing down. I did lose a home to a fire. It was because of wiring. It was an older home, and the work wasn’t mine. The work wasn’t visible, and I didn’t have a dedicated theater. My new home is new so any work done beyond the final is defiantly mine. I am sure I would have a little flack if the insurance had to pay a claim for all the extra equipment I have that isn't the norm, but I doubt from what I have heard, read and seen they would deny one. Just my opinion for what it is worth. If you realy think about it I would venture to say that over half of the finished basements and attics don't have a permit for them.

~~~~~~~~Bwolff~~~~~~~~
My Theater
Champagne tastes with a beer budget
bwolff is offline  
post #14 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 08:19 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Dennis Erskine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 9,143
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 47
I do alot of shipping with UPS and have had a few claims. Only in one case was the claim denied based upon packaging. I protested their poor judgement and they sent someone out to inspect the packaging. They again denied the claim. In this case, the items were shipped in the manufacturer's original shipping boxes (these were amplifiers) and the manufacturer was a contract shipper with UPS. The manufacturer contacted their UPS rep and the claim was paid ASAP.

Then there is FedEX Ground. I shipped a product via FedEX Ground (motorized curtain rod) which arrived at the customer's home in very bad shape and bent. Again, the product was shipped in the manufacturer's original packaging. Their claims procedure required they pickup the package from the customer, ship it to a "center", and evaluate the claim. They picked up the package (failed to give a receipt to the customer) and then lost the package. They denied the claim for damage on the basis they couldn't inspect the damage. They denied the claim for loss since it could not be proven they picked it up. I denied FedEX further business.

Insurance

I have my electronics scheduled on my homeowners policy to avoid debates later. I also have a video tape of every room in the house showing all furnishings, collectibles, etc. The video tape is in a safe deposit box.

Dennis Erskine CFI, CFII, MEI
Architectural Acoustics
Subject Matter Expert
Certified Home Theater Designer
CEDIA Board of Directors
www.erskine-group.com
www.CinemaForte.net
Dennis Erskine is offline  
post #15 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 09:16 AM
Senior Member
 
John G's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't understand why someone wouldn't get a permit and inspections if it's required in their area. If it's illegal to make certain modifications to a structure without a permit, then it's illegal... period. Would you consider telling people not to bother to get a driver's license if they know what they're doing behind the wheel -- probably not because it's illegal. There are other repercussions to building without a permit including becoming liable for back payment in property tax resulting from the increased value of the modifications (a potentially huge surprise tax bill), difficulty in selling your property as a result of having work that was not authorized or inspected... there are more.

By the way, if you get a licensed professional to do the work, then they should have liability insurance which covers faulty or defective workmanship. If there is an issue of faulty workmanship then the homeowner's insurance would have the option of denying the claim and having you file a claim against the person who performed the work, or they would subrogate (assign a portion of the claim amount) to the person who performed the work's insurance company. I don't know this from experience though... we haven't done any faulty work :D

And lastly, I strongly suggest using a licensed contractor if you're not performing the work yourself. In most states contracting without a license is a misdemeanor crime, and using an unlicensed contractor is just a problem waiting to happen -- this one I do know from experience (the problem waiting to happen part).


Disclosure: we are licensed contractors and I have professional bias.

-John Gonzales




wwjd?
John G is offline  
post #16 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 09:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
bwolff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't know a licensed contractor that would take a job that dosen't have a permit pulled. I am sure there are some but none that I know. Most of the work done is DIY by forum members who chose not to for whatever reason. Just my $.02:)

~~~~~~~~Bwolff~~~~~~~~
My Theater
Champagne tastes with a beer budget
bwolff is offline  
post #17 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
suffolk112000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jackson MI
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
One other thing regarding insurance is the fact that your insurance policy is only as good as your agent.
My wife and I learned this the hard way during the recent completion of our new home.
I had almost $3000 in tools stolen from my newly constructed pole barn during the final completion stages of our new home. My wife and I told our PREVIOUS agent that we would be storing a good majority of our possessions in the new barn while our house was being completed so our agent told us we would be covered under our current construction policy. We found out the hard way that we should have had a home-owners policy to properly cover our belongings and we are now out the money/tools because our agent sold us the wrong policy. We read the policy many months back when we originally purchased it, and then again after the break in. It seems now, every time I read the policy, I find a new way to interpret it wording.
Bottom line, it is my belief insurance companies purposely make policies confusing so when it comes time for pay-out you are at their mercy. Make sure your agent is up on his or her knowledge of the policy you are buying and get second and third opinions on whether the insurance will suit your needs.
We now take our policies to my attorney.
Craig:

Domino's donÂt fall all at once, they fall one at a time...
suffolk112000 is offline  
post #18 of 27 Old 06-11-2002, 03:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Swampfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally posted by suffolk112000
We found out the hard way that we should have had a home-owners policy to properly cover our belongings and we are now out the money/tools because our agent sold us the wrong policy. We read the policy many months back when we originally purchased it, and then again after the break in. It seems now, every time I read the policy, I find a new way to interpret it wording.
Craig:
If you told you agent you wanted coverage, an he told you you were covered then your agent may have commited an "error or omission", which is the insurance equivalent of malpractice. He is probably insured for that risk. You should ask your lawyer if you have a valid claim.

SM
Swampfox is offline  
post #19 of 27 Old 06-12-2002, 07:33 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jhill32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Shakopee, MN, USA
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by bwolff
I would have to say that most of the work that seems to be done by members of this forum would be considered over kill by most standards.
...
I did lose a home to a fire. It was because of wiring. It was an older home, and the work wasn’t mine. The work wasn’t visible, and I didn’t have a dedicated theater. My new home is new so any work done beyond the final is defiantly mine.... If you realy think about it I would venture to say that over half of the finished basements and attics don't have a permit for them.
bwolff,
Thanks for your story. That was the kind of stuff I was curious about. Did the Insurance company question whether there you had done any "improvements"? Do you know if they actually determined whether the faulty wiring was original?

I'm certainly not advocating avoiding a permit. On the contrary, I have always had a good relationship with my inspectors. What I was really digging for was to dispell (or confirm) what appears to be an urban legend about the "protection" provided by getting a permit and inspections.

I've been told by my local inspectors that the city is NOT responsible for anything they may have missed during an inspection. That seems to imply (to me) that an Insurance company would not necessarily take the existence of a permit as an acceptance of workmanship. Consequently, they could take any infraction, whether inspected or not, and use it to deny a claim. That just all seems a bit far-fetched.

Again, I'm not advocating that people just do whatever they want, with no concern for local codes. If you DO violate any codes, before or after inspection, and the city chooses to pursue the issue, they could actually shutdown your house for occupancy. They can issue a summons to the owner and condemn your house until compliant. But, I still don't think that would keep the insurance company from paying a claim.

jhill32 is offline  
post #20 of 27 Old 06-12-2002, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
robertmee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't know how your area is, but where I am, the permits are separate. For example, I called the building inspector and was told that unless my home improvement exceeds $10,000, I don't need a building permit, even though I still need to get individual trade permits for each install (elec, plumbing, HVAC). I'm not doing any plumbing or additional HVAC, so all I needed was the electrical permit.
robertmee is offline  
post #21 of 27 Old 06-12-2002, 03:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
cgblack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Vacaville, CA, USA
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by HTnut
There are instances where perhaps a permit would not be possible depending on what you wanted to do. I have a garage that i desire to build a wall in front of the garage door. I inted to seal off the garage door and put the wall right behind it and make this an HT. My understanding is that in order to make this a "living space" per code i would have to pour an additional 4" of concrete in the garage. That cant happen since i then lose any chance of ever making it a garage again for resale. Now what about the wiring in this said wall? The wall itself wont be legal so how can i possibly get the wiring inspected??
I was trying to do the same thing, and the answer is basically you can't. You either do it all completely legally, or you don't. As soon as you make the garage unusable for at least one car, or condition it (ie heating or cooling), it becomes living space.

Now, you could wire the other existing walls, and have them inspected, since that is legal. Mind you, you will have to put your outlets about 30 odd inches above the floor to meet code. Then after, add your wall inside the garage door, and do not run any wiring in it.

However, if you heat or cool the space, you are in violation of code, and should something happen, all bets are off!

I just bit the bullet and I am doing it completely legally. It is a pain in the ass, but will be better in the long run. Since I'm in California, we never park our car in the garage anyway, and would not be too worried about resale.

ps There are options for building the wall that do not require a concrete stemwall to be poured. Our inspectors allow pressure treated sills directly on the slab. You need to do the following:

Using a circular saw with a diamond blade, cut a shallow groove into the driveway slab parallel to the wall, about 2 inches fromt he framing. Clean out the groove and apply a bead of masonry caulk. Bed the edge of a pre-bent piece of flashing into the the wet caulk, then nail the flashing (at least 6" up the wall) to the wall studs. Apply a second bead of caulk along the concrete-to-flashing joint and seal where the corners overlap. Install sheathing and exterior wall finish over the flashing.

The sills must still be attached with sill plate fasteners, but this would allow the wall to be reasonably easily removed for resale.

Graeme Black
My HT construction page
Nothing can be made idiot-proof, because idiots are far too clever ...
cgblack is offline  
post #22 of 27 Old 06-13-2002, 06:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
bwolff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
JHILL32
Quote:
Thanks for your story. That was the kind of stuff I was curious about. Did the Insurance company question whether there you had done any "improvements"? Do you know if they actually determined whether the faulty wiring was original?
It was zip cord running a ceiling fan. That isn't original unless the builder is a moron, I had an aluminum main service and the neutral loosened up in the breaker box and the chassis ground was corroded at the meter. So when the ceiling fan seized up it didn't kick the breaker. I was asked if I had installed the fan. I told them no, because even at 21 I knew better. I was under insured by @30%. With age comes wisdom? I had replacement coverage though so I just got a check for the max amount. If the work was done right there would not have been a fire that night and I probably would have found the problem before something happened. If I would have said yes I had done the work I don't know what would have happened. I didn't ask. But I would say that would have to be about the same as people burning there garages down on thanksgiving day trying to deepfry a Turkey.

~~~~~~~~Bwolff~~~~~~~~
My Theater
Champagne tastes with a beer budget
bwolff is offline  
post #23 of 27 Old 06-13-2002, 01:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
Patrick C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here' my final thought on the topic. Many have stated that their insurance policy says XXX (e.g., if you don't get a permit, you're not covered) so I'm stuck with XXX. The policy *might* also say that you have to quack like a duck and paddle down an ice cream river in a canoe in order to recover a claim.

But these provisions are not enforceable for a host of reasons. Without digressing to much, an important, oversought principle of contract interpretation is "Adhesion". An adhesive contract is one in which one party is at a distinct negotiating disadvantage and is offerred take-it-or-leave-it boilerplate language.

Courts frown on adhesive contracts and will go to great lengths to construe contracts in favor of the little guy. A contract which excepts coverage because one did the work without a permit, regardless of whether failure to get a permit was the actual or proximate cause of the loss, is unconscionable and, in my opinion unenforceable.

Remember, when signing a contract, to ask if you can change the boilerplate language. Accept their "no" graciously, and make note of it. It could help you in the end.

Many people make the mistake of taking a 4-corners approach to contracts - if it isn't in the document, it doesn't count. In reality, though, the modern approach is to enforce the intent of the parties. Courts of equity are amenable to individuals fighting large corporations and their form contracts.

I negotiate real-estate contracts for a living, and because of the types of trends discussed, our department has re-written all our contracts for easy reading. Idiotic verbage like "wheretofore" and "witnesseth" are removed and 50 word sentences are cut to 5. Lawyers and corporations should be writing contracts to memorialize their client's agreement and not to cover every possible future contingency, or to intentionally create ambiguity.

I step down from my soapbox.
Patrick C is offline  
post #24 of 27 Old 06-13-2002, 09:31 PM
Senior Member
 
DinoT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Silver Spring, MD USA
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 14
The only reason that I would consider not getting a permit would be because the county would use that info to change my assesment, therefore leading to higher taxes. In my current home I have a finished basement. The county shows my property as having an unfinished basement. (The previous owner finihsed it) Similar models in my neighborhood that show up on the county's records as having finished basements are typically assesed at around $20,000 more. Ouch.
I am having a new house built so I will just get the electrician to put in a dedicated circuit to my future HT.

Dino

Dino
DinoT is offline  
post #25 of 27 Old 06-13-2002, 10:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
cgblack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Vacaville, CA, USA
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Whereas I agree that many contracts contain unenforceable language, the questions still stands, if you do not get a permit, can the insurance company deny your claim?

I maintain that they can indeed. Now, it probably comes down to the severity of the transgression. If you did wiring, HVAC, etc for an complete HT and did not get a permit, then a) you have probably broken the law, and b) if anything happens that in anyway can be related to the work done, you are probably not going to be covered. This is regardless of whether the work was done to code or not, since it will be very difficult to establish that after a fire destroys the room!

Regardless of whether a policies language is enforceable or not, if the insurance company doesn't pay, you have to sue them, this makes them the defendant and innocent until proven guilty!

Electrical work is not rocket science, but it does have areas that can easily get you into trouble and cause damage or injury. GFI outlets can easily be installed incorrectly such that they seem to work fine, but provide no GFI protection. Not putting nail strike plates in the correct locations allows some unsuspecting person do drive a nail through a 120V line with possibly dangerous consequences. Most of the electrical code is common sense, but many of the not-so-intuitive regulations have been built up and expanded upon over years of testing and experience.

Having the work inspected verifies your work was done correctly and is less likely to get someone killed. It's like proofreading your own work. I will guarantee that the author will find less mistakes than an independent third party.

To the person who asked "But I wonder what would happen if it WAS inspected, and there was still a failure in one of the 'inspected areas'." In this case you have nothing to worry about. The codes are designed to absolutely minimize, not eliminate, the possibilities for an accident. If there was a permit and inspection, it would be assumed that it was to code, and therefore and problem would be classified as an "accident".

To answer the higher assessment issue, if you file a permit, usually you get to specify the vaule of the job, and if it's reasonable, that is your new assessment. Even on $20,000, that equates to about $200 a year in taxes. I added an above ground pool and deck and listed that value at 7000 dollars, so my taxes went up $70 a year.

Graeme Black
My HT construction page
Nothing can be made idiot-proof, because idiots are far too clever ...
cgblack is offline  
post #26 of 27 Old 06-14-2002, 07:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Geordon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Mason, Michigan
Posts: 966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I ordered a piece of jewelry from a NYC shop last year, which was shipped by FedEx. The item was incorrectly sized, and had to be returned, so I sent it back using FedEx and insured for the full purchase amount. As luck would have it, the FedEx truck was robbed while stopped outside the shop in NYC, and my package was stolen. The NYPD was on the case, and I filed a statement with them. I then had to file a claim with FedEx. All FedEx had to say what that they didn't lose the item and even if I were to get awarded the claim, it would only be for $500, since there is a limit on jewelry. Yet, the counter clerk had no problem accepting my money, declaring the item, and telling her what I was shipping when I filled out the package.

After months of investigation and conversations and claim limit notices, I received a check for the full amount of my claim! I was thrilled, so say the least. On the other hand, FedEx has lost my business, not that it will have any real effect on their survival. Now, USPS gets my support.

Geordon
Geordon is offline  
post #27 of 27 Old 06-15-2002, 08:35 AM
Senior Member
 
Ron AZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am not a lawyer, or insurance sales-person. The best insurance, is to get the 'permit' and have it inspected according to county laws, a very small investment of time and money... also make sure everything is done right to protect you and your family. Also, check your insurance policy closely, for I have found they have 'limits' (ie: $5,000 or $10,000) on how much they will pay for certain items..ie; watches, jewelry, cameras and HOME ENTERTAINMENT equipment, and additions to the original structure. I had to get 'extra coverage' for certain items. You also have to be careful about the term '100% replacement' versus fair market value for they pro-rate the item based upon the 'original cost'. A lot of 'sales-people' will tell you anything to get the sale... but when something goes wrong.. they will quote the policy and won't remember anything they told you. The old saying ..'buyer beware' is very true.... Make sure you read and understand your insurance policies for you don't want something to go wrong then find out you didn't understand the 'fine-print', becasue you can be certain, they know the 'fine-print' very well. Many times we think...'I have insurance' I am covered... don't fall into this trap... Hope you never have to go down this road. Ron AZ
Ron AZ is offline  
Closed Thread Dedicated Theater Design & Construction



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off